I am on the fence here. I would like to see the specs and get some sort of tech geek's opinion. I'd also like to see what MS and Sony are going to do since that's going to have a massive impact on software next gen. If Nintendo's hardware is really behind, then I don't think I'll get it because I have to have games like GTA etc.

I like how you didn't acknowledge anyone's post  but instead just repeated the "same gap as this gen" thing as before.

Let me put this into perspective for you:

Let's say, hypothetically, the WiiU is 3x 360.

And let's say the 720 uses a 7850 level GPU since that's the max I could see consoles going next gen because of the power consumption of high end GPUs. That GPU is a bit less powerful than a GTX 580 which is 9x 360.

So how would a console that's around 8x 360, while Wii is 3x 360 have the same gap as Xbox 360-20x-WiiU gap? Also, GPUs are the best way to judge the power gap between the consoles, not RAM like you are trying to do.

Lastly, every 720 rumour regarding the OS, especially that leaked document a month back, have touted that it would be an all in one media box and is likely to use a version of windows 8. We've seen MS moving towards this with the 360 for a while now with other functions taking priority over gaming in the OS lay-out.

In fact, the whole reason MS got into the gaming industry was to gain control of the living room. Their aim has always been for a entertainment system that also plays games, not a gaming system that does other stuff.

Just face it, a good amount of that RAM will be for the OS, multimedia functions and muti-tasking. 

Yeah, he is just ignoring everyone's post so he can sleep better tonight. I won't even argue anymore until he proves me the x720 will have a 12TFlop GPU, because without it, it's impossible to have the same difference between the two hardwares.

As for the big ammount of ram for the OS (which he says we have no basis), all the info comes from the same source which gave the specs he is using... so Selnor is basically using the part of the rumor which suits to his agenda and ignoring the other part (or maybe he doesn't even know from where those specs came from). Also, as you said, the leaked Microsoft document shows they want to implement Windows 8 and heavy multimedia functions on the system. We already have leaked devkits and info on neogaf saying a huge ammount of ram is for the OS, and even if it's not, we won't see another Wii situation. Basically, Selnor has no idea what he is talking about, he just want to defend his favourite platform (which is fine by me).

Also, the leaked document promised a 6x x360 performance which is even lower than what we were saying:

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/xbox-720-document-leaks-promises-6x-performance-of-xbox-360-20120618/

I wonder how Selnor thinks that we will have the same 20x (wii x x360) gap again if the Wii U is (at minimum) 2x more powerful and (at max) 4x more powerful than x360, while x720 is going to be around x6~x8 more powerful than x360. And, as I said before, aside from all the power, we also had a SD-->HD transition.

I believe Selnor really wants this to happen, but he wants something he can't have, and this is probably frustrating. He will probably ignore our posts or maybe he will try to argue with different arguments, but in the end he knows the same gap is not possible, not even close.

 Go read neogaf's threads about all the leaked devkits/specs/documents. There is some good stuff to read.

If the Wii U was comparable to the PS4/720 it'd have no problem running every game in its launch window at 1080p without even breaking a sweat. Assassin's Creed 3 and Madden NFL and Batman Arkham City shouldn't just be "maybe a little better", they should be easily better than the PS3/360 versions.

Wii U is marginally more powerful than a 360/PS3.

PS4/720 are going to be large leaps ahead of all of those platforms, Sony has said it themselves, there's no point in making a PS4 until it can be a very large leap above the PS3.

It doesn't really matter though, because third parties treat Nintendo like crap anyway. Nintendo doesn't just have an issue with hardware fidelity, they have a massive demographic problem. The kids who play Call of Duty/Assassin's Creed/Halo and all those types of games are all XBox/PS first type of gamers.

Just because Nintendo is now finally getting ports of franchises that have been on their PS3/360 for years now is not going to impress them. And then when 720/PS4 comes out, they're going to see games like Star Wars 1313 and Watchdogs, which are either not going to be on the Wii U period (as of now, it's a no) or are going to have to be scaled down to run on the Wii U, and really of that demographic, how many people do you think are going to buy the Wii U version?

ROFL.

The wiiu CPU looks to be marginally better than that in the 360. Only running 3 cores in 2012 when 360 was running 3 cores at 3.2ghz in 2005 is pure insane.

You say 360 is 20x more powerful than Wii. Okay, that ended this conversation. LOL.

Okay, that ended this conversation.

As did the fact you never replied to my post.  I already told you the gap would not be as big because the architectural factors involved were what made it so big between Wii and PS3/X360 in the first place, not just specs.   That architectural factor is not longer in place.  Nor will the actual spec gap be as large.   It's not just how many cores you have or even how fast they run but what you do with those cores that make a difference.  Put a 4 core Ivy Bridge against a 4 core Kentsfield and you'll see what I'm talking about.   With Wii U you get modern Instruction sets, 4 way SMT, OoOO, and more.

Wii U's CPU is basically confirmed as part of the Intel Watson family. Although not 8 cores. Its 3 cores but the watson computer has 4 threads per core.

Its using a Power 7 Intel Watson CPU scaled down. 3 cores probably 4 threads per core as te Watson computer is 4 treads per core.

720 is said to be ( based on leaked info and EBAY listings for its dev kits ) to be a better Processor than Power 7 and be a huge 16 core, 4 thread per core CPU at 3.2gz per core. Hugely more potential than Wii U. And a much bigger gap than Wii to 360. Developers who write PS3 exclusives and 360 exclusives have been taking advantge of 6 threads or more for 2 years now. They are programming that way alot more for the HD twins. Wit all devs saying the 512 mb ram is olding these machines back. And that 360 and PS3 could do alot better with just more ram. See ID software, EA and Crytek.

Also Wii U has 1.5 gb ram.

720 dev kits ave 12 gb ram. So its looking like 6 gb ram. Considering developers want as muc ram as possible and say that is actually te key to muc improved grapics as much as a great GPU, Wii U will be as I fully expect a long way behind next gen. Especially considering Epic claim Samaritan will be easily doable next gen.

I dont even expect Wii U to be able to handle Watcdogs. Let alone Samaritan level stuff.

I don't think anyone is saying that Nintendo is producing a system that is as powerful as you believe Sony or Microsoft's next generation systems will be, but you're not even willing to comprehend the reality of the situation.

Running a game at medium detail and outputting at 720p@30fps requires substantially less processing power than running the same game at high detail at 1080p@60fps, and yet most customers wouldn't notice or care about the difference; or at least wouldn't care enough about the difference to wait an additional 2 years or spend an additional $200 on the system. The PS4 and "XBox 720" would need GPU that was at least in the Radeon HD 6870 range to be able to create graphics at 1080p@60fps that were comparable to what a Radeon HD 4870 could do at 720p@30fps; and would probably need to be in the range of the unreleased Radeon HD 8870 range to be able to output graphics at 1080p@60fps with significant improvements in the graphics beyond what the Radeon HD 4870 would do at 720p@30fps.

Anyone who has realistic expectations for the next generation will probably not claim the Wii U's GPU is worse than a Radeon 4850/4870 or that the HD consoles will have a GPU that is much better than a Radeon HD 6870. Third party publishers will target the largest audience possible with their next generation games which means they will treat the Wii U as "Minimum requirements" and include enhancements for the PS4/"XBox 720"; and, since it will require the least work customizing graphical assets and will produce the best overall look, developers will likely focus on resolution or frame rate improvements for the PS4/"XBox 720".

Expecting an improvement over the Wii U similar to what the HD consoles provided over the Wii is moronic because it would require Sony and Microsoft to release a $600+ console in 2014 and for third party publishers who were nearly bankrupted by development budgets on the HD consoles to embrace game development at 2 to 4 times the cost.

Take a look at any IBM roadmap and the only thing in line for a 16 core CPU is the A2 chip.  Guess what?  That's the same chip rumored to be in the Wii U and it's most certainly not better than Power 7.   And if they are thinking that Power8 might have a 16 core derivative, they are insane.  Size, heat, cost, server silicon...

RAM...6 GB.  And they'd never use it.   Did they need more than 512 MB last generation?  Yes.  Do they need 6 GB?  No.   That's just silly.  4 GB is more than plenty.  After that, it's just a waste....unless they plan to use it for a video editing feature or something.  

In other words, while the Durango kit might have been real, the final hardware won't reach the peaks of fanboy wet dreams.   Money, necessity, physics, reality....it all points to NO.

I don't think you understand how CPU architectural changes work.